# Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-05426 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** March 30, 2022 - **Citation:** 87 FR 18560 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0003] RIN 2127-AM06 Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule amends the occupant protection Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to account for future vehicles that do not have the traditional manual controls associated with a human driver because they are equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS). This final rule makes clear that, despite their innovative designs, vehicles with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high levels of occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide. The occupant protection standards are currently written for traditionally designed vehicles and use terms such as “driver's seat” and “steering wheel,” that are not meaningful to vehicle designs that, for example, lack a steering wheel or other driver controls. This final rule updates the standards in a manner that clarifies existing terminology while avoiding unnecessary terminology, and, in doing so, resolves ambiguities in applying the standards to ADS-equipped vehicles without traditional manual controls. In addition, this final rule amends the standards in a manner that maintains the existing regulatory text whenever possible, to make clear that this rule maintains the level of crash protection currently provided occupants in more traditionally designed vehicles. This final rule is limited to the crashworthiness standards to provide a unified set of regulatory text applicable to vehicles with and without ADS functionality. DATES: Effective date: September 26, 2022. Optional early compliance ( i.e., prior to the effective date) is permitted. Petitions for reconsideration must be received on or before May 16, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of February 6, 2012. ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, DC 20590. Privacy Act. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above. To facilitate social distancing due to COVID-19, NHTSA is treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information (CBI) to the Agency under 49 CFR part 512. https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact Mr. Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Telephone: 202-366-1740, Facsimile: 202-493-2739. For legal issues, you may contact Ms. Sara R. Bennett, Telephone: 202-366-7304 or Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Telephone: 202-366-5329, Office of Chief Counsel. Address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. NPRM III. Introduction to This Final Rule IV. Implications a. New and Current Terms and Definitions 1. NPRM's Approach to Driver Definition 2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and Relocated Terms 3. Driver's Designated Seating Position, Manually Operated Driving Controls 4. Passenger Seating Position 5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control 6. Outboard Designated Seating Position 7. Row and Seat Outline 8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy b. Modifying Spatial References in Test Procedures and Definitions That Rely on the Presence of a Driver's Seat and/or Manual-Operated Driving Controls 1. Driver's Seat 2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats 3. Driver's Side and Passenger Side 4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference c. Dual-Mode Certification d. Parking Brake and Transmission Position V. Occupant-Less Vehicles a. General Observations b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection a. Advanced Air Bags b. Telltales c. Front Outboard Versus Center or Inboard Seating Position d. Suppression of Vehicle Motion When a Child Is Detected in the Driver's Seat e. Belts in Buses f. Corrections to FMVSS No. 208 Regulatory Text VII. Amendments to Various FMVSSs VIII. Effective Date IX. Cost and Benefit Impacts of This Final Rule X. Regulatory Notices and Analyses I. Executive Summary NHTSA has been evaluating its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) to identify where concepts or terminology used in the standards do not account for the designs that the agency expects, and industry confirms, could accompany certain vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADSs). 1 NHTSA has detailed in previous rulemaking notices the activities it has undertaken in its evaluation. These activities include initial evaluation of the FMVSSs, 2 issuing Federal Register notices soliciting input from stakeholders, 3 research on possible options available to the agency to amend the FMVSSs, 4 and public discussions with stakeholders. 5 1 An ADS is defined as the “hardware and software that are collectively capable of performing the entire [dynamic driving task] on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a specific operational design domain (ODD); this term is used specifically to describe a Level 3, 4, or 5 driving automation system.” SAE International J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. While this notice uses the term “ADS-equipped vehicle” it focuses on SAE Level 4 and Level 5 vehicles that lack traditional manual controls. 2 https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260. 3 Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems Request for Comment, 83 FR 6148 (Feb. 13, 2018); Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 84 FR 24433 (May 28, 2019). 4 https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ads-dv_fmvss_vol1-042320-v8-tag.pdf . 5 FMVSS Considerations for Automated Driving Systems Stakeholder Meeting, information available at https://www.vtti.vt.edu/fmvss/. This prior work resulted in the agency's March 30, 2020, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) underlying this final rule. 6 The NPRM proposed to revise its current crashworthiness 7 (200-Series) FMVSSs to amend terms or other text to account for the unconventional interior designs that are expected to be present in certain ADS-equipped vehicles. An example of such an unconventional interior design would be those that lack driving controls. 6 85 FR 17624. 7 Throughout this notice, NHTSA uses “crashworthiness” and “occupant protection” interchangeably because the agency considers the 200-Series FMVSSs to be focused on both. In the proposal, NHTSA proposed to amend the existing FMVSSs in a way that maintains the occupant protection performance currently required by the 200-Series FMVSSs while amending the wording that has or will become obsolete as applied to new designs, and to clarify for manufacturers developing ADS-equipped vehicles the application of a particular FMVSS to their vehicle. The NPRM also ensured these revisions accounted for dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles (ADS-equipped vehicles that also have a conventional driving mode), as defined by SAE International (SAE). 8 NHTSA also sought to remove requirements for which a safety need does not exist. 8 An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as “[a] type of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation and operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.” SAE J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. NHTSA received 45 comments on the NPRM. 9 The proposal garnered comments from vehicle and equipment manufacturers, ADS developers, industry associations, consumer advocates, advocates for persons with disabilities, States, insurance organizations, a university, an oil independence advocacy group, and members of the general public. Many commenters supported the proposal and the use of definitional and textual changes to achieve the goals of the NPRM, though numerous other commenters argued that the agency's focus on this issue was premature. Regardless of their general position on the rule, most commenters did support NHTSA's suggestion that, to the extent any changes were finalized, they should be done in way that minimized the complexity of the changes to the FMVSSs. 9 Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0014. NHTSA received an additional 5 comments that were determined to be completely unrelated to this notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), and 1 duplicate submission (#42). The agency acknowledges that uncertainty continues to exist around the development and potential deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles. Nevertheless, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to finalize this action at this time in anticipation of emerging ADS vehicle designs that NHTSA has seen in prototype form. The current designs generally involve forward-facing row seating 10 and vehicles without manual driving controls. NHTSA has designed this final rule to minimize the changes to the FMVSSs and to maintain the level of occupant protection currently provided in all FMVSS compliant vehicles. This final rule provides regulatory certainty that, despite their innovative designs, vehicles with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high levels of occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide. This final rule adopts most of the provisions included in the NPRM, with some exceptions summarized in the next section. 10 Applying the occupant protection standards to forward-facing seating is straightforward since the standards are generally designed with forward-facing seating in mind. In contrast, applying the standards to side-facing, campfire or other seating configurations is more complex and will involve more research, which is currently underway, and standard development. Differences Between the NPRM and Final Rule The differences between the NPRM and the final rule are generally minor and are fully explained in the relevant sections in this document. Some of the more substantive changes in this final rule are as follows. • NHTSA believes that children should not occupy the “driver's” position when the vehicle is operating in ADS mode and steering controls are present, given that the driver's seating position has not been designed to protect children in a crash. For example, the required limit on the rearward displacement of the steering column and forcefulness with which the air bag deploys have been optimized for adults and could pose a safety risk to children. The NPRM proposed that ADS vehicles must suppress vehicle motion when: (1) The vehicle contains a driver's seat ( i.e., manually operated driving controls are available, but not necessarily functional during ADS operation); (2) the occupant of the driver's seat is classified by the air bag system as a child; and (3) the vehicle is in an operational state that does not require a driver ( i.e., where the ADS is in control of the driving task). After review of the comments, for now, NHTSA has decided against adopting a vehicle motion suppression requirement in these circumstances. The agency would like to know more about the relative risk of a child seated in the “driver's” position as compared to the passenger position and whether there are other ways of addressing this safety concern than a requirement to suppress vehicle motion completely. The agency would also like to explore any necessary refinements to occupant detection and low risk deployment requirements and test procedures for the driver's seat. • Proposed regulatory text would have changed the front row seat compartmentalization occupant protection requirements for large school buses (gross vehicle weight rating over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)) in ways not intended by NHTSA. Such text is not adopted by this final rule. • NHTSA has modified FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to be clearer in the protections that are required for inboard seating positions in the front row of ADS-equipped vehicles. • This final rule modifies the application section of FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield mounting, and 219, Windshield zone intrusion, to make clear these standards exclude occupant-less vehicles, since these standards meet no safety need when there are no occupants to protect. • NHTSA has decided not to move forward at this time with changing the FMVSS No. 226, Ejection mitigation, requirements for the ejection mitigation countermeasure readiness indicator. The agency will consider amendments to controls and displays in a separate rulemaking. Minor differences between the NPRM and this final rule are discussed in the appropriate sections in this preamble. Some of these differences include: • Moving the definition of “seat outline” from FMVSS No. 226 to § 571.3, Definitions (see Section IV.a.7 of this preamble); • Slightly revising the term used to describe occupant-less vehicles, to refer to at least “one person” rather than referring to “a designated seating position,” (see Section V.a of this preamble); and • In FMVSS No. 208, correcting a missed revision indicating there can be multiple front seat passengers (S19.2.2(e)) (see Section VI.f of this preamble), and adopting a wording change to clarify the air bag suppression test procedure (S20.2, S22.2, S24.2) (see Section VI.a of this preamble). As was the case for the NPRM, to illustrate the precise changes that are being made within the context of the full regulatory text, we are providing in the docket for this rulemaking a document that contains the full regulatory text of each modified standard included in this final rule. The text is color coded in the following manner; blue bold underline (text added by the NPRM), red strikeout (text deleted by the NPRM), green bold underline (text added by the final rule), orange strikeout (text deleted by the final rule). (The information is provided for illustration purposes for the convenience of readers and does not change the amendments provided in the amendatory text of this final rule.) Guiding Principles In the NPRM, NHTSA expressed certain “guiding principles” for this rulemaking, which continue to be relevant in this final rule. First, the amended FMVSS requirements in this final rule are intended to maintain the level of crashworthiness performance in vehicles with and without ADS functionality, including ADS-equipped vehicles that also have a conventional driving mode (dual-mode ADS vehicles). The level of performance required by the amended FMVSSs is just as appropriate for ADS-vehicles as it is for non-ADS vehicles in protecting the public against unreasonable risk of death or injury in a crash. 11 More specifically, NHTSA sought to maintain the level of safety currently provided to occupants by applying the crash test performance requirements for the right front outboard occupant to the left front outboard occupant of ADS-vehicles, wherever possible. Similarly, occupants seated behind driving controls in ADS-vehicles (dual-mode ADS vehicles) will be protected just as drivers are today. Second, NHTSA sought to amend its standards to account for new designs, and to clarify for manufacturers developing ADS-equipped vehicles, particularly those that lack manual controls, that the standards apply to their vehicles. In short, NHTSA sought to clarify that a manufacturer of ADS-equipped vehicles must continue to apply occupant protection standards to its vehicles even if manual steering controls are not installed in the vehicle. Finally, for the convenience of readers and those familiar with the standards, NHTSA sought to amend the requirements in a manner that minimized the changes to the regulatory text of the standards. 11 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10) (from definition of “motor vehicle safety”). This final rule is purposefully limited in scope based on the bounds listed below. 1. This final rule only applies to ADS-equipped vehicles that have seating configurations similar to non-ADS vehicles, i.e., forward-facing front seating positions (conventional seating). Thus, NHTSA focused on conventional seating in this rulemaking, noting that additional research is necessary to understand and address different safety risks posed by vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements ( e.g., rear-facing seats or campfire seating). 2. This final rule addresses ADS-equipped vehicles designed exclusively to carry property (“occupant-less vehicles”) by amending the application of existing crashworthiness requirements for these vehicles, as appropriate. This final rule does not address potential vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility issues related to occupant-less vehicles, as the existing standards do not test for this issue. 12 12 Vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility refers to how well two vehicles match up in a two-vehicle crash. Vehicles that are heavier, with higher ground clearance, and with stiffer front ends can pose a higher injury risk to occupants in smaller cars. Currently NHTSA has no evidence of compatibility issues with occupant-less vehicles, but NHTSA is researching this area. 3. With one exception, this final rule refrains from amending requirements relating to telltales and warnings, as that area has implications beyond the 200-Series standards and is a subject of continuing NHTSA research. The exception to this is the air bag suppression telltale, which we believe is reasonable to address now. This is described further in section VI.b of this preamble. Tables of Costs and Benefits This rule will eliminate the need for ADS-equipped -vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with redundant manual driving controls in vehicles that do not have manual driving capabilities, to comply with FMVSS. In turn, the cost impacts of this rule will be driven predominantly by the per-vehicle costs savings to each vehicle that would no longer need certain manual controls and the number of vehicles produced each year that will be produced without those controls. The Agency has reliable information on the former category, given that we generally know the current costs of this equipment, but can only estimate the broader effects. Thus, NHTSA calculated ranges of estimates of cost impacts using a variety of logical assumptions. NHTSA calculated the impact of the final rule on costs by analyzing production cost savings arising from forgoing the installation of manual steering controls. These cost savings are partially offset by incremental costs associated with augmenting safety equipment in the left front seating position to make that position equivalent to the right front seating position. NHTSA estimates that this rule would save approximately $995 per vehicle, as explained in greater detail in the RIA. NHTSA has conducted an analysis that shows how these cost savings would look if these types of vehicles entered the fleet to at least some degree. The results of this estimate show the present value of the final rule's estimated year-2050 savings to ADS-DV manufacturers and consumers, based on the assumption that there will be approximately 5.8 million affected vehicles, at a three-percent discount rate equal to $2.5 billion. At a seven-percent discount rate, the estimated year-2050 savings has a present value equal to approximately $0.9 billion, as presented in Table 1: Table 1—Estimated Total Monetized Annual Cost Impacts [ADS-DV cost impacts in 2050, billions of 2018 dollars, 31% ADS-DV sales share] Dual-mode sales share offset Discount rate Mean cost impact 0% 3% (Discounted back to 2022) −$2.5 0% 7% (Discounted back to 2022) −0.9 30% 3% (Discounted back to 2022) −1.7 30% 7% (Discounted back to 2022) −0.6 These estimates represent an upper bound, in which ADS-DVs do not compete with dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles ( i.e., 5.8 million ADS-DVs are sold in 2050, with each including a measure of production cost savings associated with forgoing manual steering controls). Under the alternative EIA scenario in which one percent of new vehicle sales in 2050 are comprised of ADS-DVs, the corresponding estimates are: A present value in 2022 of approximately $60 million at a three-percent discount rate; and approximately $20 million at a seven-percent discount rate. As a sensitivity analysis, NHTSA also considered an alternative case, in which ADS-DV sales in 2050 are reduced by 30 percent relative to the baseline, with the change in sales representing sales of dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles. This represents a case in which: (1) ADS-DV sales are split between approximately one-sixth fleet sales and five-sixths private ownership, per the EIA scenario; (2) one-seventh of fleet ADS-DV purchases in the baseline analysis are allocated to dual-mode vehicle sales ( i.e., approximately 1/7 × 1/6 of all ADS-DV sales); and (3) one-third of private ADS-DV purchases in the baseline analysis are allocated to dual-mode vehicle sales ( i.e., approximately 1/3 × 5/6 of all ADS-DV sales). Under this alternative scenario, savings to ADS-DV manufacturers and consumers under the final rule would be approximately $1.7 billion at a three-percent discount rate, and approximately $0.6 billion at a seven-percent discount rate. There are no other quantified benefits associated with this final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that this final rule may impact safety and fuel consumption and would likely generate benefits associated with incremental producer and consumer surplus beyond the production cost savings quantified above. This final rule may also generate benefits that could lead to increased safety, reductions in administrative burden, and reductions in manufacturer uncertainty, though these benefits are also unquantified. The final rule is assumed to have no effect on the per-mile risk of travel in ADS-DVs, as it does not revise, remove, or establish anything associated with their safety performance. That is, the removal of manual steering controls is not assumed to offer any direct safety benefit or detriment for travel in ADS-DVs. However, it is feasible that changes in ADS-DV demand associated with the final rule ( e.g., due to changes in vehicle design or decreases in cost) could increase the use of ADS-DVs. In turn, safety outcomes associated with the final rule would be equal to the net effects of: (1) Changes in per-mile fatality and injury risk for travel that is shifted from conventional vehicles to ADS-DVs; and (2) incremental fatalities and injuries for travel in ADS-DVs that would not have taken place in any vehicle otherwise. It is difficult to project net safety impacts associated with the final rule without information on: (1) Per-mile fatality and injury risk for ADS-DVs and conventional vehicles over time; and (2) demand for travel in ADS-DVs and conventional vehicles as a function of ADS-DV price and design attributes. NHTSA continues to engage in various research, regulatory, and enforcement efforts associated with the safety of the automated driving system itself, but those activities are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The final rule could affect per-vehicle fuel consumption by changing the mass of ADS-DVs. NHTSA expects ADS-DV mass to either decrease (due to the removal of currently required equipment) slightly or remain essentially unchanged (due to the addition of automated steering components that offset the mass savings of the removed equipment) under the final rule. NHTSA acknowledges that, in principle, ADS-DV mass could increase (if vehicle seating configurations and amenities are changed sufficiently when exploiting the reduction in design constraints when removing manual steering controls) under the final rule. In any event, current corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) requirements are based on a vehicle's “footprint,” and thus any change in a vehicles mass will not affect a manufacturer's obligations under that program. Finally, as stated in the NPRM, NHTSA has not attempted to address the revisions that may be necessary to provide regulatory certainty for manufacturers that wish to self-certify ADS-equipped vehicles with unconventional seating arrangements. The final rule would lead to a reduction in the number of standards from which manufacturers of ADS-DVs would have to seek exemptions. The reduction in exemption requests would be associated with a reduction in administrative costs for both manufacturers and NHTSA. NHTSA does not have sufficient information to establish a specific estimate of administrative cost savings. However, the cost savings would be expected to be small relative to the production cost savings associated with the rule. A less tangible, but still important, expected impact of the final rule would be a reduction in uncertainty for manufacturers of ADS-equipped vehicles. The final rule provides clarity to manufacturers on constraints to developing FMVSS-compliant ADS-equipped vehicles. In turn, developmental paths for ADS-equipped vehicles could be implemented with greater precision and efficiency. The reduction in uncertainty could reduce not only the costs associated with manufacturing ADS-equipped vehicles, but also the time it would take to bring these vehicles to the market. An accelerated development timeline would be a benefit both to manufacturers and consumers. II. NPRM On March 30, 2020, NHTSA issued an NPRM that proposed modifications to certain terms and other regulatory text in the 200-Series FMVSSs to account for ADS-equipped vehicles and certain interior designs that are expected to be present in these vehicles, including the lack of driving controls. 13 The NPRM also included modifications to the regulatory text to take into account some dual-mode ADS-equipped vehicles. 14 The NPRM sought to resolve whether occupant protection requirements ought to apply to occupant-less vehicles. 13 85 FR 17624. As discussed below, however, the NPRM assumed the vehicles will have conventional forward-facing seating. 14 An [ADS-Equipped] Dual-Mode Vehicle is defined as “[a] type of ADS-equipped vehicle designed for both driverless operation and operation by a conventional driver for complete trips.” SAE J3016_201806 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. NHTSA's proposal sought to account for certain vehicle designs expected to accompany ADS-equipped vehicles in a manner that minimized textual additions and modifications to the 200-Series FMVSSs. The proposal discussed existing terms used in the standards that, through their use, made uncertain how regulatory text applies to vehicle designs that did not incorporate such terms. The proposal discussed existing terms that, by virtue of new vehicle designs, could be misunderstood, and defined them to clarify their meaning for ADS-equipped vehicles. The NPRM proposed a few new terms and definitions and proposed relocating other terms and definitions. The NPRM proposed to modify regulatory text to address situations where there may be no driver seat, but multiple outboard passenger seats. The agency proposed to consider any left outboard seat that does not have immediate access to traditional manual controls (“manually operated driving controls”) as a “passenger seat” and mirror the test procedures and requirements from the right side. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, is a primary focus of this rulemaking, as it is one of NHTSA's most complex standards, and many of this standard's performance requirements and test procedures were written with references to the “driver's” seating position. This emphasis on the driver's position in the standard reflected the fact that, with conventional ( i.e., non-ADS) vehicles, the driver's seat should always be occupied by an individual of legal driving age during operation. For our discussions in this document we will typically refer to these individuals as adults, although they may in some cases be legally minors. The NPRM discussed the treatment of advanced air bags and advanced air bag suppression telltales 15 in ADS-equipped vehicles with two front outboard passenger seats. The NPRM proposed to require a separate telltale for each front outboard passenger seat, which must be visible from each front outboard seat. The NPRM addressed FMVSS No. 208's seat belt requirements for “medium-sized” buses (with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb.)) and 11,793 kg (26,000 lb.)) and school buses (GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.)). For such buses equipped with ADS without a driver's seat, NHTSA proposed that all front seats meet the protection requirements that must currently be met by the driver's seat. 15 The term “telltale” is defined in FMVSS No. 101; Controls and displays, as “an optical signal that, when illuminated, shows the actuation of a device, a correct or improper functioning or condition, or a vehicle system's failure to function.” The term is used in many other FMVSSs and is used in FMVSS No. 208 for an indicator of air bag operational status as a function of the occupant detection system of the seat. The NPRM proposed to streamline the 200-Series FMVSSs so that requirements would not apply when the ADS-configured vehicle posed no safety need for the requirement. For example, the proposal took the position that, when there is not a steering wheel or steering column in a motor vehicle, FMVSS Nos. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, and 204, Steering control rearward displacement, would not apply. Similarly, the NPRM proposed not to apply occupant protection standards to vehicles designed solely to carry cargo, rather than occupants (“occupant-less” vehicles). 16 This was accomplished by proposing to alter the “application” section of various FMVSSs to indicate that the standards only applied to a “truck” with at least one designated seating position (DSP). 17 The NPRM analysis concluded that this change was only required for FMVSS Nos. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, 205, Glazing material, 206, Door locks and door retention components, 207, Seating systems, 208, Occupant crash protection, 214, Side Impact protection, 216a, Roof crush resistance; Upgraded standard, and 226, Ejection mitigation. 16 We note that a vehicle designed to carry standee passengers ( e.g., a transit shuttle) would fall under one of NHTSA's other vehicle classifications. 17 “Designated seating position” is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Generally described, a DSP is a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 millimeters (13 inches) as measured in the manner described in the definition. High-Level Summary of Comments on Overall Approach and Need for Rulemaking In response to the NPRM, NHTSA received 45 comments from vehicle and equipment manufacturers and ADS developers, industry associations, consumer advocates, advocates for persons with disabilities, States, insurance organizations, a university, an oil independence advocacy group, and members of the general public. Generally, most commenters supported the proposal, the revision of terms and use of definitional and textual changes to achieve the goals of the NPRM, and the agency's approach to minimize the complexity of the changes to the FMVSSs. 18 However, various other commenters, particularly certain non-governmental organizations, raised concerns about the agency's general approach to ADS regulation and the prioritization of this and similar rules, though many of these commenters had only minor comments concerning specific proposed technical changes. 18 An additional 5 comments were received that were determined to be completely unrelated to this notice (#4, #5, #6, #18, #52), and 1 duplicate submission (#42). Approximately 25 commenters across all commenter types agreed that there is a need for the proposal, and, of these, approximately 17 commenters stated they agreed with the general approach. For example, General Motors (GM) commented that it supports the approach used in the NPRM and that “when finalized into a final rule, [it] will provide needed regulatory certainty for certification, reduce certification costs and minimize (but not completely eliminate) the need for future NHTSA interpretation or exemption requests related to ADS-equipped vehicles.” Waymo stated that the proposal would not reduce any protections for automated vehicles without manual controls and strongly supported the limitations in scope of the NPRM “to crashworthiness standards to conventional occupant seating arrangements.” The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Alliance) stated that the rulemaking will work towards “maintaining motor vehicle safety” and “reduce the need to rely on the administratively complex and time-consuming FMVSS exemption process.” Several commenters, though, questioned the need for the rulemaking action. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) argued that a better allocation of limited government resources would be to focus on the “nearer-term technology improvements with immediate impact on the safety of occupants of conventional vehicles, pedestrians, and other vulnerable road users.” CAS stated that such an approach was more appropriate because “fully autonomous driving system-equipped vehicles [. . .] do not exist at this time.” CAS also asserted that NHTSA should not permit traditional manual controls to be removed from vehicles “until at least equivalent safety [of ADS-equipped vehicles] is proven.” CAS stated that such controls “might be deployable only as needed but are an absolute necessity for the many conceivable foreseen and unforeseen safety-critical situations that ADS-equipped vehicles will encounter.” The National Safety Council (NSC) stated that “shifting focus from tried-and-true vehicle standards is the wrong approach and evaluating the removal of those standards is premature at this time. As most ADS vehicle designs that might benefit from a revision of FMVSS standards are still on the drawing boards and unforeseen issues are certain to arise, eliminating current standards at this point is hasty.” NSC argued that NHTSA should redirect resources and prioritize requiring advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and other technologies in vehicles. Consumer Reports (CR) also “question[ed] the present focus of the agency on `removal of regulatory barriers' rather than on developing and implementing standards for proven safety technologies,” though CR also stated that it “appreciate[s] the Agency's targeted approach on this topic” and that the narrow scope of the NPRM “is appropriate.” The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) expressed concern that “the current Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) creates a path for deploying into the market ADS-controlled vehicles without regulations that establish the ground rules for the safe behavior of ADS,” Though it also stated that “modifications proposed by NHTSA likely will be helpful to the entities developing automated driving systems (ADS) and the vehicles that will be controlled by ADS” and that the “changes answer some questions about how the occupants of ADS-controlled vehicles should be protected in the event of a crash.” Agency Response NHTSA is sensitive to concerns raised regarding prioritizing rulemakings and other activities that emphasize other technologies, such as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), instead of focusing on vehicles that remain in development. However, in the case of this rulemaking, the agency focused appropriate resources to address a narrow question. Further, NHTSA has determined it is appropriate to proceed with this final rule at this time, as it will provide ADS manufacturers with certainty on how to comply with these FMVSSs and reaffirm the application of occupant protections standards to vehicles equipped with ADS. Thus, this final rule will have the limited effect of providing clarity on the specific issues addressed here, which will, at the very least, ensure that vehicles with ADS technology provide the same high levels of occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide. Taking this action now will make clear that the crashworthiness standards apply to vehicles with ADS technologies. We also note that, in addition to this action, we have commenced rulemaking and other action on ADAS technologies. In the Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, NHTSA announced two rulemakings to require emergency braking performance for heavy and light vehicles and to require pedestrian automatic emergency braking performance in light vehicles. 19 Furthermore, the agency is working on updates to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP 5-star safety ratings program) to include additional modern vehicle safety technologies that can address crashes and promote safer behaviors. Thus, the agency is actively engaged in actions related to ADAS. 19 Heavy Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM36 and Light Vehicle Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) with Pedestrian AEB, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=2127-AM37 . The purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), which NHTSA, by delegation, is tasked with administering, is to reduce traffic crashes and their resulting deaths and injuries, through carrying out research and establishing FMVSS. 20 In establishing FMVSSs, NHTSA sets minimum performance standards that are objective and practicable, and that protect the public against an unreasonable risk of crashes occurring, and death or injury in the event a crash does occur. 21 This final rule is consistent with the goals of the Safety Act by modifying the FMVSSs to account for vehicle designs that NHTSA anticipates will arise with deployment of ADS-equipped vehicles, in a manner that provides occupants with at least the same protections afforded by existing standards that the agency has already found meet the need for motor vehicle safety. 20 49 U.S.C. 30101. 21 49 U.S.C. 30111. Although NHTSA understands concerns that this final rule is premature given the current state of ADS-equipped vehicle development, the agency has received many requests from industry for information to assist them in determining how existing FMVSSs apply to ADS-equipped vehicles developed without traditional manual controls ( e.g., steering wheels) and other unconventional vehicle designs. In response to these requests, NHTSA conducted a preliminary analysis of the potential unintended barriers to these vehicle designs, 22 issued requests for comment, held public meetings, and initiated rulemaking proceedings on the topic—including this rulemaking—to gather as much information as possible on how best to approach modernizing the FMVSS to account for these vehicles. 22 Kim, Perlman, Bogard, and Harrington (2016, March) Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles, Preliminary Report. US DOT Volpe Center, Cambridge, MA. Available at: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12260/dot_12260_DS1.pdf . There also continues to be progress toward development of ADS-equipped vehicles. NHTSA knows of dozens of testing and development activities taking place in more than 40 States and the District of Columbia, many of which involve ADS-equipped vehicles that lack manually operated driving controls. 23 In addition, one manufacturer of small, low speed, occupant-less ADS delivery vehicles received a temporary exemption from NHTSA to deploy up to 2,500 vehicles per year for two years. 24 These activities, and the advancements toward development of ADS-equipped vehicles, have created an opportunity for new vehicle designs that warrants evaluation of current FMVSSs. 23 https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicles-safety/av-test-initiative-tracking-tool . 24 85 FR 7826 (Feb. 11, 2020). NHTSA has also received two other petitions for exemption for ADS-equipped vehicles that would lack manually operated driving controls. However, the agency has only requested comment on one of these petitions, which was later withdrawn. The agency is currently developing notices of receipt for the two other petitions it received, including GM's updated petition. See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autonomous-cruise-nhtsa-idUSKBN2762SP . When NHTSA promulgated most of the current FMVSSs, the agency did not consider the sorts of vehicle designs that would be possible if a vehicle could operate without human intervention. Today, an increasing number of companies are developing technologies to make that idea a reality. NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend terminology, definitions, and other nomenclature found in the relevant FMVSS that inadvertently and unnecessarily impede the unconventional vehicle designs described by manufacturers. NHTSA identified the narrow scope of the NPRM clearly and has retained that scope for this final rule. Although the agency is sympathetic to many of the suggestions from CAS, CR, NSC and IIHS that NHTSA should focus on other vehicle safety issues and technologies, the agency believes it remains appropriate to finalize today's action on the narrow grounds identified in the NPRM, while continuing its other research and ongoing rulemaking actions on the issues identified by those commenters, including those related to ADS performance and ADAS technologies. Issues related to agency allocation of resources are also outside the scope of this final rule. NHTSA also disagrees with the IIHS assertion that this final rule alone creates a path for ADS deployment. NHTSA's existing FMVSSs do not prevent the deployment of ADS in vehicles configured like traditional vehicles ( i.e., equipped with manually operated driving controls), when the vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If the vehicle can be certified as meeting the FMVSSs, it can be deployed with ADS regardless of issuance of this final rule. This final rule simply makes targeted changes to the FMVSSs to account for certain vehicle designs that NHTSA has seen from some manufacturers or has otherwise been made aware. In addition, this final rule only addresses the crashworthiness standards. As the agency continues to assess how and whether to change other relevant FMVSSs in response to these types of vehicles, at this stage, an ADS-equipped vehicle may still be required to petition for and receive an exemption from NHTSA to be manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States. 25 25 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). This final rule is substantially similar to the NPRM, with some alterations resulting from consideration of the comments. A summary of the substantive differences between the NPRM and final rule was provided in Section I of this preamble. III. Introduction to This Final Rule This final rule preamble is organized by critical subject matter. First, the rule addresses subjects that affect all 200-Series FMVSSs, such as changes to the terminology used in the standards. For example, the agency is defining some terms already used in many of the 200-Series FMVSSs to account for ADS-equipped vehicles ( e.g., “driver's designated seating position,” “passenger seating position”), or is adopting new definitions as appropriate (“manually operated driving controls,” “steering control”). These changes to nomenclature provide clarity about how the crashworthiness FMVSSs apply to ADS-equipped vehicles and seek to amend the FMVSSs to include these new vehicle designs. Another issue that affects all 200-Series FMVSSs is the way in which the standards use features such as the “driver's seat,” “passenger seat,” and “steering controls” as spatial references to describe where things are located within the vehicle. This final rule amends the terms so that the spatial references make sense as applied to the interior designs of ADS-equipped vehicles, which may, for example, lack a driver's seat and have an additional passenger seat instead. Other issues of general significance include clarifications regarding how the 200-Series FMVSSs apply to vehicles that can be operated by both ADS and by a steering control (dual-mode vehicles), and how some test procedures pertain to vehicles that do not have components referenced therein ( e.g., a manual parking brake mechanism). Second, this final rule achieves an objective of the agency with regards to “occupant-less vehicles,” by tailoring the 200-Series FMVSSs to exclude vehicles that are intended not to have human occupants. Occupant-less vehicles are designed for the transportation of property, not people, and have no DSPs. The agency has determined that the original safety need of the 200-Series FMVSSs no longer exists when there are no occupants to protect. A more fulsome discussion of this topic is provided in section V of this preamble. Third, this final rule preamble discusses amendments to terminology used in certain FMVSSs, and focuses on FMVSS No. 208 as a critical subject, as many of the performance requirements of this standard were written with reference to the driver's and passenger's seating positions. This final rule discusses changes to substantive requirements of the standard resulting from those revisions to terminology, such as the treatment of advanced air bags and advanced air bag suppression telltales in ADS-equipped vehicles, lockability requirements, and changes to FMVSS No. 208's seat belt requirements for medium-sized buses and large school buses following the removal of the term “driver.” Fourth, after the FMVSS No. 208 discussion, this final rule discusses amendments to other FMVSSs. Lastly, the final rule discusses the effective date and cost impacts of the rule. IV. Implications a. New and Current Terms and Definitions 1. NPRM's Approach to Driver Definition In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to define, modify, or relocate existing terms and proposed new terms both to clarify application of the 200-Series FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles and to facilitate the implementation of other proposed regulatory changes. However, NHTSA did not propose to amend the definition of “driver” in 49 CFR 571.3 to include ADS, and it did so intentionally. NHTSA cited four primary reasons for this decision. First, NHTSA believed it would not be appropriate to consider changes to such a fundamental and ubiquitous concept (“driver”) in a rulemaking that focused solely on the 200-Series without completing the additional research necessary to address implications for those other FMVSSs. Second, the regulatory changes NHTSA proposed in the NPRM did not necessitate examination of the issue of “what is a driver.” Third, NHTSA determined that revisiting the definition of driver would best be done in a different context, perhaps if the agency undertakes defining the ADS itself. Finally, keeping the current definition of driver was consistent with the input NHTSA received through the initial phase of a research project under which the FMVSSs were reviewed to identify potential approaches for addressing barriers. 26 26 DOT HS 812 796, April 2020. Notwithstanding NHTSA's statements above, NHTSA received several comments suggesting amendments to the driver definition. 27 However, none of these comments addressed NHTSA's four areas of concern. Accordingly, NHTSA does not amend the definition of driver in this final rule. However, the agency will consider the input received from comments on this rulemaking in proposing future regulatory actions. 27 For example, some commenters suggested adding “human” or “conventional” in front of driver. As the agency noted in the preamble to the NPRM, since the “driver” definition clearly indicates an “occupant,” specifying “human” is superfluous. 2. Newly Defined, New, Modified, and Relocated Terms The agency proposed several changes to terms and definitions to implement the goals of the rulemaking. These definitions were proposed to be located or were already located in part 571.3, “Definitions.” Table 2, below, summarizes the NPRM's proposal for the reader. Table 2—Proposed Changes to Terms and Definitions Proposed term or definition Type Justification Driver air bag means the air bag installed for the protection of the occupant of the driver's designated seating position New definition of existing term Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. Driver dummy means the test dummy positioned in the driver's designated seating position New definition of existing term Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. Driver's designated seating position means a designated seating position providing immediate access to manually operated driving controls. As used in this part, the terms “driver's seating position” and “driver's seat” shall have the same meaning as “driver's designated seating position” New definition of existing term Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. Manually operated driving controls means a system of controls: (1) That are used by an occupant for real-time, sustained, manual manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading (steering) and/or speed (accelerator and brake); and (2) That are positioned such that they can be used by an occupant, regardless of whether the occupant is actively using the system to manipulate the vehicle's motion New Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion. As used in this part, the terms “outboard seating position” and “outboard seat” shall have the same meaning as “outboard designated seating position” Modification Clarify that the undefined terms “ outboard seating position ” and “ outboard seat ” have the same meaning as “ outboard designated seating position. ” Passenger seating position means any designated seating position other than the driver's designated seating position, except as noted below. As used in this part, the term “passenger seat” shall have the same meaning as “passenger seating position.” As used in this part, “passenger seating position” means a driver's designated seating position with stowed manual controls New definition of existing term Clarify the application of occupant protection requirements. Row means a set of one or more seats whose seat outlines do not overlap with the seat outline of any other seats, when all seats are adjusted to their rearmost normal riding or driving position, when viewed from the side Relocation Eliminate the necessity to cross-reference FMVSS No. 226. Steering control system means the manually operated driving control(s) used to control the vehicle heading and its associated trim hardware, including any portion of a steering column assembly that provides energy absorption upon impact. As used in this part, the term “steering wheel” and “steering control” shall have the same meaning as “steering control system” Relocation; Modification To incorporate new definition for “manually operated driving controls,” and to clarify that the definition applies to the undefined terms “steering wheel” and “steering control.” In proposing these definitions, NHTSA acknowledged that vehicle designs are changing in response to technological innovation. Given that the agency is already seeing ADS-equipped vehicles being designed to operate in a “driverless” mode at all times, 28 and understanding that more vehicles may be designed as such in the future, the underlying assumption behind many of the current FMVSSs that manually operated driving controls will be present in all vehicles at all times is no longer controlling. For vehicles designed to be solely operated by an ADS, manually operated driving controls are logically unnecessary. 29 To account for this, the NPRM proposed a regulatory scheme in which the affected standards would not assume that a vehicle will always have a driver's seat, a steering wheel and accompanying steering column, or just one front outboard passenger seating position. The definition modifications proposed allows the regulatory text, to be unambiguous related to, for example, which front seating positions are driver or passenger designated seating positions (DSPs). Taking the left front outboard seat as an example, this seating position may be a passenger seating position (modified definition) because it is not a driver's designation seating position (modified definition). It is not a driver's (DSP) because by virtue of the definition of driver (unmodified definition), it does not have access to a steering control system (modified definition), which is a type of manually-operated driving control (new definition). 28 See, e.g., Nuro R2X, discussed further below. 29 Note that other regulatory changes to the FMVSS not impacted by this rulemaking ( e.g., with regard to the 100-Series FMVSSs) would likely be necessary to permit such a vehicle to be manufactured for sale, even with the changes made by this rule (absent an exemption to the FMVSS under 49 CFR part 555). Note also that the Safety Act's defect provisions apply to an ADS and ADS-equipped vehicle. The NPRM proposed to accomplish this regulatory scheme by modifying the text of the affected standards so that the front outboard passenger seat performance requirements and test procedures would apply to all front outboard seating positions for these vehicles. For most standards, the NPRM proposed to accomplish this by slight textual changes that would enable the performance requirements and test procedures that currently apply to the right front passenger seat to be “mirrored” for the left side of the vehicle. If the ADS-equipped vehicle retained a driver's seat, the NPRM proposed keeping performance requirements and test procedures for the driver's seat, when it exists, effectively unchanged. These proposed changes effectively turn occupant protection requirements for the driver's seat into “if-equipped” requirement, meaning that when a vehicle does not have a driver's seat, all front outboard seating positions must meet the current front outboard passenger seat requirements. The standards to which NHTSA proposed making this type of change were FMVSS Nos. 201, 208, 214, and 226. Commenters generally supported NHTSA's proposed changes to the terms and definitions. Some commenters provided suggestions and minor modifications to the proposals. This final rule maintains the proposed definitions and changes to terminology, except for “passenger seating position.” We address specific comments below. 3. Driver's Designated Seating Position, Manually Operated Driving Controls The NPRM proposed to define driver's designated seating position as “a designated seating position providing immediate access to manually operated driving controls. As used in this part [571], the terms `driver's seating position' and `driver's seat' shall have the same meaning as `driver's designated seating position.' ” This definition incorporated another proposed term, manually operated driving controls, which was defined in the NPRM as “a system of controls: (1) That are used by an occupant for real-time, sustained, manual manipulation of the motor vehicle's heading (steering) and/or speed (accelerator and brake); and (2) That are positioned such that they can be used by an occupant, regardless of whether the occupant is actively using the system to manipulate the vehicle's motion. The definition of steering control system was clarified to state that it is a type of manually operated driving control. Comments Many of the comments related to these definitions focused on “unconventional” driving controls. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) argued that the definition of “driver's designated seating position” should be written to exclude non-conventional controls such as joysticks, computers, tablet computers or wireless remote controls, and that reference should be made to controls that are “permanently attached to the vehicle in a fixed location.” In contrast, Tesla argued that the definition should consider situations where, for example, “the manual controls may be removable, or where they may still be present, but are `locked' or rendered inoperative when the ADS is in control of the driving task, or where the vehicle may be operated remotely by portable steering controls within the vehicle ( e.g., by cell phones or tablets).” Tesla stated that the definitions may not fully consider the “range of possibilities” of types of controls, such as “buttons, joysticks, screens” and “should not necessarily be determinative of whether the designated seating position should be considered a driver's rather than a passenger's seat for purposes of occupant protection.” The Alliance and Toyota commented that there may be a lack of clarity with respect to joystick type controls as to how they would fit into the proposed definitional structure. Agency Response NHTSA has considered the comments but is not revising the two proposed definitions. The agency concludes that CAS's suggested changes would add ambiguity to the definition of the driver designated seating position. The commenter's suggestion to add “conventional” to the definition raises a question about the meaning of this term. Similarly, we believe that making the recommended change to refer to permanently attached controls in a fixed location may cause confusion with respect to stowable controls that may be installed in “dual-mode” vehicles. NHTSA does not agree with Tesla that it is necessary at this time that the definition for manually operated driving controls account for the use of tablets or cell phones to control the vehicle. The new definition is meant to encompass traditional driving controls, not future controls that have not yet been developed. We also note that this rulemaking does not address joystick-type designs that are intended to be the only manual driving control or driving controls that have no fixed position at a particular seating location. Since this issue raises crash avoidance and crashworthiness safety concerns that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action, we will not address the matter in this final rule. 30 30 GM focused on the plural nature of the proposed definition to suggest that an unconventional control, such as a joystick, could in fact be a single manually operated control (not a system of controls ) for use by a technician or for fleet management to move the vehicle across a lot, for example. GM believed that this single control would not be intended for use by a motorist for real-time, sustained manual manipulation of steering or acceleration or braking. Instead, GM envisioned this single control to be used for the short-term, temporary activation of the vehicle for fleet management purposes. Tesla argued that only one of the terms “steering control system” and “manually operated driving controls” may be necessary, not both. NHTSA disagrees and believes having both terms allows for a more consistent regulatory text and less disruption from the existing text structure. Tesla claimed that the NPRM did not address the situation where the driving controls may still be present but are “locked” or “inoperative.” The NPRM explicitly considered inoperative controls that remain in position. 31 Tesla sought clarity on whether remote operation fell into the definition of “manually operated driving controls.” In response, under the definition of “manually operated driving controls,” it specifies that such controls are positioned such that they can be “used by an occupant” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the definition of “manually operated driving controls” excludes remote operation controls. 31 85 FR at 17637, VI.a.vi.6. The Alliance stated there is a lack of clarity with respect to stowed manual controls. The commenter suggests the term “stowed” could mean a range of positions. The commenter points to the preamble statement that research may be needed into the “transition of traditional manual controls in dual-mode ADS equipped vehicles.” To be clear, issues arising from the physical act of stowing manual controls is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. We believe the existing standards clearly provide for occupant protection when the controls are stowed, creating a passenger DSP. As for the meaning of the term “stowed,” it is the past tense of “stow,” which has the plain language meaning of “pack or store away.” In the 200-Series standards, it is a term that is already used in relation to air bags, seat belts, and sun visors. We believe that a stowed manually operated driving control will be self-evident. Stowed controls could have multiple potential stowed positions and configurations, but not positioned such that they can be used by the driver. 4. Passenger Seating Position The NPRM proposed to define “ passenger seating position” as—any designated seating position other than the driver's designated seating position, except as noted below. As used in this part, the term “passenger seat” shall have the same meaning as “passenger seating position.” As used in this part, “passenger seating position” means a driver's designated seating position with stowed manual controls. GM suggested slightly revising the last sentence in a manner that clarifies the provision about stowed controls. NHTSA agrees in part with GM's suggestion, and has decided in this final rule to change the last sentence to state: As used in this part, “passenger seating position” includes what was a driver's designated seating position prior to stowing of the manually operated driving controls.” 5. Steering Wheel to Steering Control The NPRM proposed to change the term “steering wheel” to “steering control” in consideration of steering controls that may not be circular, such as those shaped more like an airplane yoke control. At every occurrence of the term “steering wheel,” the NPRM substituted the term “steering control.” These terms were meant to be synonymous as is evident by the use of the terms in the proposed definition of “steering control system.” Comments Comments were generally supportive, although some commenters raised concerns about issues tangential to the proposal. The California State Transportation Agency 32 (State of California, or CalSTA) and Securing American's Future Energy (SAFE) expressed support for the proposal. Safe Ride News (SRN) expressed concerns related to potential dangers for non-circular steering controls. Tesla did not comment on the change from “wheel” to “control,” but rather was concerned that the term “steering control rim” in FMVSS No. 208 implied a circular control. 32 Comments submitted in coordination with the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The final rule will adopt the proposed change. With respect to SRN's concerns, the change in terminology does not newly enable manufacturers to equip vehicles with non-circular steering controls, since such controls were never prohibited. All of the standards that address the impact protection of steering controls remain in place. We also disagree with Tesla's contention that the use of the term “rim” limits the shape of the steering control to a round object. We believe “rim” can reasonably be interpreted as “outer edge.” Thus, various shapes are possible. We decline to make any change to the term “steering control rim” in this final rule. 6. Outboard Designated Seating Position NHTSA proposed to clarify that the terms “outboard seating position” and “outboard seat” have the same meaning as used in the existing definition of “outboard designated seating position.” Our analysis of the regulatory text of the crashworthiness FMVSSs, determined these three terms have the same meaning. Therefore, to clarify this point, we proposed added language specifying that “outboard seating position” and “outboard seat” have the same meaning as “outboard designated seating position.” Comments There were no adverse comments made to this proposal and the final rule will adopt the proposed change. 7. Row and Seat Outline The NPRM proposed to relocate the definition of “row,” which is currently located in FMVSS No. 226, to Part 571.3. The term was proposed to be used in multiple standards (FMVSS Nos. 201, 206 and 208). Moving it to part 571.3 would eliminate the need to insert a reference to its current location. Comments There were no adverse comments related to moving the definition of “row.” However, Alliance, Zoox and GM recommended that the definition of “outline” similarly be moved to part 571.3 because the definition of “row” uses this term. The final rule will make this change. 8. Driver Air Bag and Driver Dummy The NPRM proposed to define “driver air bag,” “driver dummy.” These are new definitions, but the terms already appear many times in the FMVSSs. This is also the case for “passenger seating position” and “driver's designate seating position,” which we discussed extensively above. However, there was previously no strong need to define these terms. NHTSA proposed to define them now because they help to clarify the application of the FMVSSs to ADS-equipped vehicles while maintaining their application to traditional vehicles and minimizing textual disruption. Comments There were no adverse comments made to this proposal and the final rule will adopt the proposed change. b. Modifying Spatial References in Test Procedures and Definitions That Rely on the Presence of a Driver's Seat and/or Manual-Operated Driving Controls FMVSS Nos. 201, 206, 208, 214, 216a, 225 and 226 contain terms or definitions that reference the driver's seat or steering controls to provide a spatial reference for where equipment in the vehicle must be installed, or test equipment (such as test dummies) placed in a compliance test. The NPRM proposed various changes addressing the situation where there is no driver's seat, a lone passenger seat, or no steering control to provide a spatial reference frame. In some instances, the agency proposed using the front row or the front outboard seating position as a reference rather than the driver's seat. In some cases, the “left” or “right” side of the vehicle was proposed to be used rather than “driver's side” or “passenger side.” 1. Driver's Seat The NPRM proposed using the front row, or the seating reference point of a seat in the front row, as a spatial reference rather than the driver's seat. Such changes were proposed for FMVSS Nos. 201, 206, 208 and 225, for buses. 33 Most commenters were supportive of the proposed changes. 33 The Center for Auto Safety did not comment on the specifics of the change, but as with other bus-related issues, stated that “it is inappropriate to consider ADS for buses within the stated NPRM scope.” NHTSA has responded to this issue earlier in this preamble. FMVSS No. 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” currently defines “shuttle bus” as “a bus with only one row of forward-facing seating positions rearward of the driver's seat” (emphasis added). The NPRM proposed modifying the definition to state that if the bus does not have a driver's seat, it would meet the definition of a shuttle bus if it has only one row of forward- facing seating positions rearward of the front row. The NPRM made no alteration for non-ADS vehicles. Comments The Alliance supported the change to the definition of “shuttle bus,” but requested that this change be made for all vehicles, not just vehicles without driving controls, using the same language. In contrast, the State of California (CalSTA) commented that the “proposed change may result in practical design and configuration changes to shuttle buses. Further research into how these changes will impact occupant safety on shuttle buses, if at all, is needed and suggests that it may be premature to address at this time.” The Alliance further addressed provisions for rear-facing front row seating. NHTSA is not implementing the Alliance's suggestion to apply the definitional change to non-ADS-equipped vehicles and is not accounting for rear-facing front row seating. This decision is in line with the agency's intent to focus this rulemaking narrowly to address unique designs that might be implicated by ADSs. This rulemaking is NHTSA's first step toward modernizing the FMVSSs to account for these new vehicle designs. No doubt there will be other steps, as the technologies mature, and suggestions for further amendments will be considered at those appropriate times. NHTSA disagrees with CalSTA since the changes will have no effect on vehicles with driver's seats. Further, it is our expectation that using a front row seat as a reference rather than a driver's seat will have little to no effect on the reference point location. For the reasons above and explained in the NPRM, this final rule adopts the changes that refer to the front row instead of to the driver's seat. 2. Dummy Placement in Bench Seats Currently FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 refer to the driver's DSP when specifying where to place and position test dummies in bench seats of vehicles in the respective compliance tests. The NPRM proposed to use the seating reference point of outboard seats as the spatial reference for the lateral placement of test dummies when there is no driver's DSP. Comments All comments were generally in favor of using the seating reference point of outboard seats as the spatial reference for the lateral placement of test dummies when there is no driver's DSP. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) agreed with the proposed change to FMVSS No. 208 on the use of the seating reference point as the spatial reference for bench seats when there is no driver's seat. However, CAS stated: “[T]his proposal should not pertain to vehicles that include fixed or deployable human-accessible primary or backup (potentially deployable on demand or need) controls.” NHTSA understands this comment as conveying CAS's belief there should not be any reduction in the safety of the driver as a result of this final rule—a belief with which the agency agrees. The agency notes that the proposed regulatory text was purposefully drafted in a manner that would not affect the protection currently provided by vehicles with manually operated driving controls, i.e., those with a driver's seat. IIHS stated that the proposed method to position passenger side dummies in the absence of a “driver's” seat “seems sensible.” However, the commenter requested that the agency “ensure that this change will not result in unrealistic dummy positioning for all relevant dummy sizes before making its proposed change.” NHTSA has assessed how this final rule would impact dummy placement during compliance testing and concluded that the dummy positioning procedures are feasible for all the test dummies used in the standards, and dummy positioning would remain realistic for all tests. The Alliance supported the proposed language and suggested that such a method should be used with vehicles with unconventional steering controls. This suggestion is beyond the scope of this rulemaking but will be considered for future actions. 3. Driver's Side and Passenger Side FMVSS Nos. 206, 208, 216a and 226 refer to “driver's side” and “passenger side” in describing substantive requirements and compliance test procedures. The NPRM proposed to substitute “left side” for driver's side and “right side” for passenger side. Comments Some commenters were in favor of the approach NHTSA took in the NPRM. The Alliance supported the proposed language substituting “left side” for “driver's side.” CAS indicated that this approach is sufficient to provide for testing under FMVSS No. 208. CalSTA supported the proposal, stating that this approach does not result in any “loss in meaning.” The commenter also agreed with similar proposed changes in FMVSS Nos. 206, 214 and 216a. A few commenters did not support this change. In contrast to its comment about FMVSS No. 208, CAS stated that for FMVSS No. 214, optional manual controls normally associated with the driver's position could be located on the right side of the vehicle. CAS also contended that, for FMVSS No. 226, the proposed changes to “left front door sill” from “driver's door sill” could have implications for vehicles that may only have doors or seating on the right side of the vehicle. ZF stated that the question of whether this option would result in the same performance outcome is one that needs additional study because it is unclear to them that “the occupant will be in the exact same position.” The agency is adopting its proposal to change references to the driver's and passenger side of the vehicle to the left and right side of the vehicle. With respect to CAS's concern about FMVSS No. 214, whether manual controls associated with a defined driver position are on the left or right side of the vehicle has no bearing on the application of the standard's requirements and test procedures to a vehicle. The standard's side impact protection requirements currently and will continue to apply equally to the left and right sides of the vehicle. Further, the spatial reference changes proposed for FMVSS No. 214, S10.2 were nearly identical to the changes CAS supported in FMVSS No. 208. Regarding FMVSS No. 226, the agency is not aware of any vehicles under 10,000 lb. GVWR without a door on the left side of the vehicle. Regardless, placement of doors and seating on the right side of the vehicle does not affect the application of the requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 226. Finally, in response to ZF, we believe that it is reasonable to assume at this time that occupants would remain in the same position as currently contemplated by the standard, and thus, the same performance outcome could be expected by modifying the current language to “left side” and “right side.” NHTSA does not believe that additional research is necessary at this time since this rule only changes the term used to describe the seating position (“driver's” seat) and not the performance requirements or placement of the seat itself. Finally, as mentioned previously, the scope of this rule includes conventional seating, not unconventional seating arrangements. 4. Steering Controls as a Spatial Reference FMVSS No. 201 S5.1.1(d) excludes from S5.1 “areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 165 mm diameter head form tangent to and inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel.” The NPRM proposed to amend S5.1.1(d) so that an area of the instrument panel excluded from S5.1 (the impact procedure) would no longer be excluded if the steering control were not present, i.e., the exclusion only applies to situations where the steering control is present. CAS argued that the standard should apply to ADS-equipped vehicles that include optional manual controls that are either fixed or deployable if they are associated with a defined position. The Alliance believed additional clarity for S5.1.1(d) is needed for dual-mode vehicles with stowed controls, suggesting that NHTSA add the phrase “if the steering control is present or, in the case of dual-mode vehicles, fully deployed in manual driving mode” to the beginning of S5.1.1(d). In response to CAS, the proposed amendment was intended to address vehicles without “steering wheels” and where the steering control is not present. The rule change was to ensure the protection provided by the current passenger side of the instrument panel (right side) is provided to the left side (former driver's side). The revised standard will provide the same level of protection as the current standard when a steering control system is present. Relatedly, NHTSA declines to make the Alliance's suggested clarification because it is unnecessary. Steering controls are defined as a type of “manually operated driving control.” Manually operated driving controls are “positioned such that they can be used by an occupant.” Thus, by definition, these controls are not stowed controls. The suggestion also raises additional questions related to how “dual-mode vehicles,” “fully deployed,” and “manual driving mode” should be defined. c. Dual-Mode Certification The NPRM stated that for dual-mode vehicles with the capability of stowing driving controls, NHTSA would require manufacturers to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSSs in both modes ( i.e., with the manually operated driving controls available and with the controls stowed). 34 When the manually operated driving controls are available, the vehicle would be subject to the FMVSS requirements at that DSP as applied to a driver's DSP. When they were stowed, the vehicle would be subject to the FMVSS requirements at the DSP as applied to a passenger seat. 34 85 FR at 17634. Comments Many commenters supported NHTSA's approach to dual-mode vehicles. IIHS noted that the agency's statement in the preamble 35 that “NHTSA expects that manufacturers will need to certify compliance in both states ( e.g., manually operated driving controls available and stowed)” [emphasis added] was unclear and urged NHTSA to modify the regulatory text to ensure its expectation is met. The Automotive Safety Council (ASC), Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), and Uber agreed with NHTSA's proposal to require that manufacturers certify compliance to, and conduct validation testing in, both modes. Tesla suggested that NHTSA add “even more clarity regarding the applicability of the FMVSS to such [dual-mode] vehicles. Dual-mode vehicles are likely to be some of the first ADS-equipped vehicles on the road.” In addition, Tesla believes it sees a conflict in the agency statements that a seating position is not a driver's DSP, i.e., it is a passenger DSP, if that position is not equipped with a manually operated driving control and the statement that a DSP remains a driver's DSP when driving controls are in place and the ADS is engaged. 35 Id. Agency Response Among commenters addressing the issue of certification of dual-mode vehicles, there was agreement on the need to certify in both modes. In response to IIHS, we have reviewed the regulatory text to assure the text is not worded in terms of “expectations” but is clear in terms of requirements. 36 36 Uber presented several hypothetical situations relating to the Safety Act's “make inoperative” provision, 49 U.S.C. 30122, which were beyond the scope of the NPRM. The Agency recommends persons seeking a request for interpretation of NHTSA's standards or regulations, or of the statutory provisions of the Safety Act, submit a request for interpretation to NHTSA's Chief Counsel's Office. With respect to the Tesla comment about seeing a conflict in the agency statements that a seating position is not a driver's DSP, NHTSA believes these statements are not in conflict and clearly proceed from the terms used in the regulatory text (driver, steering control system, manually operated driving controls, driver's DSP, and passenger seating position). For example, the definition of “manually operated driving controls” makes no statement about the state of any ADS system. It simply states, among other things, that the controls are “positioned such that they can be used by an occupant.” While the steering controls might not be used, as would be the case of a dual-mode vehicle with the ADS engaged, the seating position where they are located and positioned for potential use, by definition, remains the driver's DSP. NHTSA believes that no additional regulatory text changes are needed beyond that proposed in the NPRM to assure clarity with respect to certification of dual-mode vehicles. NHTSA notes that if a left front seat has both a driver configuration and a passenger configuration, the agency may choose either configuration for compliance testing, or test both configurations. d. Parking Brake and Transmission Position Many of the 200-Series FMVSSs incorporate a full vehicle crash test or other kind of dynamic vehicle test in the standard's compliance test. For some of these dynamic tests, a test condition applies such that the vehicle transmission is in neutral, and/or the parking brake applied. For vehicles without driver-accessible transmission shift selectors or parking brake mechanisms, NHTSA may not have readily available means to set the vehicle in neutral, activate a parking brake, or achieve other test conditions described in the compliance test. NHTSA did not propose any regulatory text changes related to interfacing with ADS-equipped vehicles on pre-test transmission and brake status. The agency believed such changes were unnecessary for the purposes of this notice, as the important factor for the 200-Series FMVSSs was whether the transmission was in the proper gear and the pre-test brake activated; the way that pre-test state was achieved was of no consequence to performance of the crash test. It was envisioned that manufacturers would provide the know-how for the agency to achieve the necessary transmission and brake status when NHTSA conducts its compliance tests. However, comments were requested on this issue. Comments Commenters were generally in agreement with the agency's approach. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) supported the agency's views on this matter. The Alliance agreed that manufacturers could and would work with the agency to achieve the necessary transmission and parking brake status. Waymo stated that it “agree[s] with the line of thinking that the important element is whether the transmission is in the proper gear and whether the pre-test brake is activated—not the manner in which that state is achieved.” 37 GM stated it would work with NHTSA and the agency's test labs should the need for such consultation arise. Alternatively, Tesla believed NHTSA should “consider updates to the parking brake status in compliance testing where it may not reflect real-world scenarios.” 37 Waymo stated the Agency should remain flexible in compliance testing in general: “[t]o implement this principle, NHTSA could adopt policies allowing manufacturers to provide the tools and information necessary for the agency to conduct compliance tests in a manner befitting each manufacturer's unique automated vehicle designs.” Agency Response NHTSA's view of how compliance tests would be conducted on vehicles without traditional transmission shift levers or parking brake mechanisms was supported by the commenters. The agency envisions compliance testing will be conducted with the above framework in mind. Tesla may be raising a point that certain test conditions may not be necessarily relevant or appropriate for some vehicles, if, for example, the vehicle parking brake status is not appropriate. While NHTSA agrees that FMVSS test conditions should be relevant and appropriate for the vehicle and for the safety need addressed by the standard at issue, the agency is not currently aware of a situation where the parking brake status is an inappropriate test condition or would be inappropriate for an ADS-equipped vehicle. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule does not change any regulatory text related to interfacing with ADS-equipped vehicles on pre-test transmission and brake status. V. Occupant-Less Vehicles Currently, the 200-Series “vehicle” standards apply to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, and school buses. These vehicle types, as they are defined in 49 CFR 571.3, are all, by definition, passenger-carrying vehicles, except for “trucks.” (A driver of a truck is considered an occupant but is not considered a “passenger.”) Occupant-less vehicles would not have designated seating positions or any other vehicle features that aid in the transportation of seated or standing occupants. These vehicles, which would not even have a driver's DSP, are expected to be more oriented to commercial movement of goods. Thus, by definition, occupant-less vehicles cannot be categorized as a passenger car, MPV, or bus of any kind. The definition of “truck” in § 571.3 is the only vehicle type definition that specifically covers vehicles designed to carry property and not “persons.” Because occupant-less vehicles qualify as trucks, 38 and since the 200-Series standards apply to trucks, occupant-less vehicles are currently subject to the 200-Series standards even though they do not carry occupants. In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively determined that a safety need did not exist to apply the existing 200-Series standards to occupant-less vehicles. In addition, the analysis concluded that for some 200-Series standards, the application to occupant-less trucks could create uncertainty about certification because the requirements are seemingly linked to the existence of specified designated seating positions. Accordingly, with respect to trucks, NHTSA proposed to amend the application sections of FMVSS Nos. 201, 205, 206, 207, 208, 214, 216, and 226 to apply only to trucks with DSPs. 38 Under NHTSA's self-certification framework, manufacturers must certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to the vehicle type, and, to do so, must classify their vehicles for purposes of determining which FMVSSs apply. NHTSA may take issue with that classification if the agency believes the manufacturer has misclassified the vehicle and thus failed to certify the compliance of the vehicle appropriately with applicable FMVSSs. There are some standards that are applicable to trucks that the NPRM did not propose to amend because they only apply if a DSP were present. One such example is FMVSS No. 202a, Head restraints. Similarly, the agency did not propose amending the applicability of FMVSS No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, and 204, Steering control rearward displacement, to trucks. As discussed in the NPRM, this is because those standards only apply to vehicles with steering controls, which an occupant-less vehicle necessarily lacks. No change was proposed for FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, because the standard is an equipment standard, and no change was proposed for FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, because that standard's requirements only apply to DSPs. That said, NHTSA requested comment on whether any “additional changes are necessary or appropriate” to accomplish the goals of the NPRM. 39 39 85 FR at 17625. Comments Most commenters that addressed this issue were supportive of the proposal, but a few had reservations about how the approach could affect crash compatibility and other safety matters. A number of commenters focused on the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 203 and 204, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield mounting, and 219, Windshield zone intrusion. Most commenters believed that no safety need exists requiring occupant protection standards for occupant-less vehicles, and that the 200-series standards were not relevant for such vehicles. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) specifically supported changes to standards that apply to trucks with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.). Uber argued that “equipment that is designed to protect occupants in traditional vehicles will do nothing but create unnecessary potential safety hazards in the event of a crash or if that equipment malfunctions.” Nuro stated that applying occupant protection standards to occupant-less vehicles could degrade safety by adding weight and rigidity, which may increase “the risk to occupants” of other vehicles. A number of other commenters suggested that NHTSA overlooked several other 200-Series FMVSSs that should also be amended to exclude occupant-less trucks from their applicability, namely FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219. Commenters expressing concern about the proposal included the State of California (CalSTA) regarding possible degradation to the safety of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, if occupant-less vehicle were excluded from FMVSS No. 205. The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) raised the potential for crash compatibility concerns stemming from the potential loss of energy absorption in a crash involving an occupant-less vehicle. Agency Response While NHTSA believes the non-applicability of certain standards was implicit in the proposal, the agency has considered the comments and is adopting amendments to provide clarity. Several commenters (including the Alliance, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), Nuro, and, Zoox) suggested that additional clarity is needed with respect to the 200-Series FMVSSs sections the NPRM did not propose to modify. As discussed later below, NHTSA agrees to amend FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to clarify non-applicability to occupant-less vehicles. a. General Observations The Center for Auto Safety argued that a truck with an optional or deployable control system should not be excluded from FMVSS Nos. 201, 205 and 206. NHTSA would like to be clear that this subject pertains to occupant-less vehicles that are specifically designed not to contain occupants. NHTSA's intent is to keep the safety of occupants, including drivers, at the forefront of this rule. Nuro suggested three possible ways to limit the applicability of the FMVSSs to occupant-less vehicles: (1) A blanket exclusion in section 571.7; (2) a preamble statement; or (3) a change to all application sections. First, a blanket change to section 571.7 or to change “all” application sections would be overly broad and exceed the scope of this notice, which focuses exclusively on the 200-series standards. Second, a statement in the preamble would not provide appropriate transparency and clarity. In other words, the applicability of the standards to the vehicles in question would not be apparent from the actual text of the standards. Thus, to assure a full and careful consideration of the applicability of the FMVSSs to subject vehicles and avoid unintended consequences, NHTSA has decided to evaluate each standard and determine applicability on a standard-by-standard basis. In some cases, no change was needed because the non-applicability of the standard to occupant-less vehicles is indirect ( e.g., by virtue of reference to a seating position, such as for FMVSS No. 202a). In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to exclude occupant-less trucks from the FMVSS occupant protection requirements, tentatively concluding that, “the safety need that supports the crashworthiness requirement of FMVSS No. 208 for the protection of vehicle occupants does not exist for occupant-less trucks.” While this final rule affirms this conclusion, the agency notes that the language proposed to accomplish this exclusion applies standards to “trucks with at least one designated seating position.” Commenters such as the National Disability Rights Network, in different contexts covered in Section VI.f of this preamble, raised the prospect of vehicles with ADS that do not include a DSP, but accommodate people with certain physical disabilities ( e.g., through wheelchair securement mechanisms). NHTSA notes that the definition of DSP only encompasses wheelchair securement devices for a “vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.” Accordingly, the proposed applicability language (referring to trucks with at least one designated seating position) may leave ambiguity as to whether an occupant-less truck could be permissibly outfitted with a wheelchair securement mechanism and avoid occupant protection requirements. While the NPRM's preamble discussion tentatively concluded that occupant-less trucks do not present a safety need for occupant protection requirements, the language used to exclude such trucks was imprecise and conflicted with the tentative conclusion, which could lead to confusion. Accordingly, the agency has decided that, rather than amending the application sections to include “trucks with at least one designated seating position,” the final rule will specify, “trucks designed to carry at least one person,” which would include occupants in wheelchair securements. We believe this will ameliorate the problems related to referencing the DSP definition, yet will achieve the same purpose. We note that this change should not result in any reduction in objectivity since the definitions of passenger car, MPV, and bus all refer to being designed to carry a certain number of persons. b. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials CalSTA posited that vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, might be placed at risk if occupant-less vehicles are excluded from meeting FMVSS No. 205. The State suggested that “[i]f the glazing materials standard is removed, a standard providing a commensurate level of safety for vulnerable road users should be implemented.” Given that one of NHTSA's guiding principles for this rulemaking was maintaining safety levels provided by existing FMVSS, the agency carefully considered this issue. The agency first analyzed the intended purpose of FMVSS No. 205. The focus of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard, SAE J673-Automotive Safety Glasses—on which FMVSS No. 205 is based—was to benefit the occupants of motor vehicles. The purpose of Standard No. 205 as promulgated, and as specified today, references vehicle occupants and makes no mention to persons struck outside the vehicle. Nonetheless, the commenter raises the possibility that FMVSS No. 205 has had an unintended benefit for vulnerable road users, and the agency sought to understand any unintended consequences of this rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA undertook a thorough search, but found no crash data or research studies that could verify unintended benefits for pedestrians, cyclists or other persons resulting from FMVSS No. 205 glazing. The effect of glazing in pedestrian and other road users' collisions with motor vehicles is complex, as the crash may manifest potential tradeoffs between various design aspects of glazing and glazing retention. The center of the windshield, if it breaks on impact, can be a relatively forgiving area with respect to the impact forces/deceleration of the struck person. However, in contrast to the middle of the windshield, the area of windshield attachment, particularly at the A-pillars, may be relatively hazardous to a person striking it as the pillars are stiff structural elements. For a windshield to protect occupants, it must be adequately retained in a crash. FMVSS No. 212 specifies windshield mounting requirements that must be met, for the benefit of occupants, when subjected to a 48 km/h (30 mph) barrier crash test. In order to retain the windshield, the perimeter mounting must be sufficiently stiff. It is unclear whether or to what extent the crashworthiness test requirements of FMVSS No. 205 contribute to, or are offset by, these forgiving yet stiff aspects of a windshield. That is, even if the glazing is forgiving in the center once it breaks, the windshield mounting must be stiff enough to meet FMVSS No. 212. Any overall benefit to pedestrians and cyclists from compliance with FMVSS No. 205 is uncertain. It bears noting that FMVSS No. 205 is an “if equipped” standard. Accordingly, the standard only requires FMVSS No. 205 glazing if vehicles have glazing. The extent to which occupant-less vehicles would have glazing is unknown at this time. In its comment, Nuro argued that, if manufacturers of occupant-less vehicles were not required to meet occupant protection requirements, they could concentrate on protection of other road users. 40 40 Nuro made similar arguments specific to FMVSS No. 205 in its petition for a temporary exemption from aspects of FMVSS No. 500, which the Agency granted on February 11, 2020. Docket NHTSA-2019-0017-0002; 85 FR 7826. FMVSS No. 500 requires low speed vehicles to have a windshield that meets FMVSS No. 205. After consideration of the information above, NHTSA has decided that information is not available to substantiate the view that there would be lost safety benefits to pedestrians and other road users by excluding occupant-less vehicles from FMVSS No. 205. However, NHTSA will monitor this issue. In view of Nuro's statement above, NHTSA believes that the amendment adopted by this final rule may open up avenues for potential development of more pedestrian-friendly designs for occupant-less vehicles, though the agency is not relying on this belief in making the decision to exclude these vehicles, as these vehicles would not be required to make these changes. As to more general matters, both NADA and Ford asserted that the change to FMVSS No. 205 would not address the standard in its entirety, and that transmissibility/visibility aspects of the standard would need to be revisited in the future. In response, NHTSA notes that the NPRM proposed, and this final rule adopts, revisions to FMVSS No. 205 that apply the standard only to vehicles with occupants. In its comment to the NPRM, Nuro stated that, just as the NPRM proposed changes to FMVSS No. 205, conforming changes should be made to FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles, and part 565, Vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements. Nuro sought a change to FMVSS No. 500 to make clear that a windshield is required only if the low speed vehicle had at least one DSP. In response, NHTSA has decided no change to the low speed vehicle standard is necessary because FMVSS No. 500 incorporates by reference various aspects of other FMVSS. This means, in practice, that when NHTSA makes changes to FMVSS No. 205, those changes will automatically be incorporated into FMVSS No. 500. While the low speed vehicle standard refers to FMVSS No. 205, the change to the application section of FMVSS No. 205 makes clear that it does not apply to occupant-less vehicles. Also, other aspects of FMVSS No. 500 will still apply to occupant-less vehicles, so changing FMVSS No. 500 could be confusing. Nuro noted that part 565 requires that the VIN be visible through “the vehicle glazing” by an observer “whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar.” This final rule does not amend part 565, as the matter is beyond the scope of the NPRM. However, the agency understands the issue and will consider addressing it in a future action. c. Vehicle Crash Compatibility The Automotive Safety Council (ASC) supported limiting the crash protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208 to vehicles with at least one designated seating position but argued that measures are still needed to ensure adequate crash compatibility with the fleet. ASC referenced ADS 2.0 statements that “unoccupied vehicles equipped with ADSs should provide geometric and energy absorption crash compatibility with existing vehicles on the road.” ASC stated that crash compatibility “is currently controlled to some degree by the crash requirements of FMVSS [No.] 208. Energy absorption in the crash by the unoccupied vehicle structure is a necessary factor in helping to protect the occupied vehicle passengers.” In its comment, Nuro mentioned that the preamble of the NPRM indicated NHTSA is considering crash compatibility research and possible rulemaking for occupant-less vehicles. Nuro stated that crash compatibility should not be the agency's initial foray into drafting standards for these vehicles. Nuro argued there is no reason to believe that occupant-less vehicles should be less compatible than existing vehicles, but that “the opposite is true due to the lower mass and smaller size that can be achieved for vehicles that will not carry, and need not include protections for, humans.” The NPRM did not include provisions related to potential vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility, and this final rule continues this approach. As stated in the NPRM, this is a complex issue that has not yet been adequately researched and we have no evidence that vehicle-to-vehicle crash compatibility might cause adverse safety consequences at this time, as occupant-less vehicles do not exist in the fleet in any significant number. However, NHTSA is engaged in research on this subject and will also monitor on-road deployments. In addition, NHTSA does not agree with Nuro's assertion that all future occupant-less vehicles will necessarily be small and light and thereby a safer collision partner because NHTSA's decision in this final rule is not limited by weight and thus will apply to any occupant-less vehicle. NHTSA notes that the American Trucking Associations' comment on this subject, as previously mentioned in the Comments subsection of section V. of this preamble, was especially supportive of changes made to standards applying to occupant-less trucks with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.), thus indicating that there may be occupant-less vehicles that are much larger and heavier than Nuro's vehicles. Further, the fact that an occupant-less vehicle does not have to protect its own occupant does not mean that they will necessarily be designed to protect other road users more, as it is possible that manufacturers of occupant-less vehicles might tolerate increased risks to other road users in the interest of protecting their own cargo. Potential crash compatibility implications relating to occupant-less trucks is an area of interest for the agency and warrants further examination. d. FMVSS Nos. 212, Windshield Mounting and 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion The NPRM requested comment on whether the agency had included all relevant FMVSSs that might need changes similar to those identified in the proposal. Many commenters suggested there was no safety need to apply FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 to occupant-less vehicles, as there would be no occupants in the vehicles to protect with the countermeasures installed to meet these Windshield mounting and Windshield zone intrusion standards, respectively. Agency Response NHTSA agrees that FMVSS No. 212 and 219 should also be amended to exclude occupant-less vehicles. It was an oversight by NHTSA not to have included those standards in the NPRM. The NPRM for this rulemaking action was broad and intended to include all crashworthiness (200-Series FMVSSs) standards. In the NPRM, NHTSA discussed whether there was a need to apply FMVSSs that serve primarily to protect vehicle occupants to occupant-less vehicles, and whether those FMVSSs had a continuing safety purpose for occupant-less vehicles. NHTSA requested comment on “whether additional changes are necessary or appropriate” to accomplish the goals of the NPRM. 41 This request sought the very input that NHTSA received from commenters on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219, and was included in the NPRM with the intent of soliciting input on whether the agency had included all relevant FMVSSs that might need changes. 41 85 FR at 17625. As requested, commenters provided additional input, and the comments received on FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219, helped NHTSA assure the final rule would address a more complete set of relevant standards. Given that NHTSA proposed FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials be amended so as not to require a windshield in an occupant-less vehicle to meet that standard due to an absence of a safety need for the glazing, failing to make conforming changes to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 would be inconsistent with both the Agency's intended outcome and with commenters' requests. The modifications to FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 are the logical outgrowth of both the discussions related to occupant-less vehicles and the proposed regulatory text for FMVSS No. 205. Given the absence of a safety need to apply FMVSS No. 205 to occupant-less vehicles, there is also no safety need for occupant-less vehicles to retain a windshield to protect against injury from penetrating objects or ejection (FMVSS No. 212), or from windshield intrusion (FMVSS No. 219). Accordingly, NHTSA is amending FMVSS Nos. 212 and 219 in this final rule to exclude trucks that are not designed to carry at least one person (occupant-less vehicles). VI. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection Making appropriate amendments to FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection is one of the most important aspects of this rulemaking. Not only is Standard No. 208 a significant 200-Series standard, but it includes several terms that differentiate a “driver's” position from a front “passenger's” seating position. Thus, translating the terms of FMVSS No. 208 to account for vehicles that do not have manually operated steering controls, or vehicles where the manually operated steering controls could be stowed, is central to this final rule. The NPRM discussed proposals for: Applying FMVSS No. 208's advanced air bag requirements to front outboard seats without manually operated driving controls (including to seats that had been considered a driver's seat); applying the standard's telltale requirements; applying requirements for front outboard seats to seats that are no longer “outboard”; and suppressing vehicle motion when a child restraint system is sensed in a seating position with manually operated steering controls. The NPRM also proposed amending FMVSS No. 208's bus requirements to account for buses equipped with ADS and that lack manually operated steering controls. FMVSS No. 208 currently establishes crash protection requirements that are the same for the driver's designated seating position (DSP) as for the right front outboard seating position (commonly referred to as the front passenger seat). The vehicle's compliance with the requirements is assessed in a frontal crash test using adult-sized crash test dummies. To minimize air bag risks to children and small-statured adults, however, FMVSS No. 208 also establishes “advanced air bag” requirements that, among other things, require the air bags at the right front DSP to either turn off automatically in the presence of detected young children, or deploy in a manner less likely to cause serious or fatal injury to child occupants. Manufacturers may also choose to combine these approaches. Vehicles that disable the passenger air bag utilize weight sensors and/or other means of detecting the presence of young children. To test detection capability, FMVSS No. 208 specifies that child dummies be placed in child restraint systems (child seats) that are, in turn, placed on the passenger seat. It also specifies “out-of-position” tests that are conducted with unrestrained child dummies sitting, kneeling, standing, or lying on the passenger seat. For manufacturers that design their passenger air bags to deploy in a low risk manner, the standard specifies that unbelted child dummies be placed against the instrument panel. The air bag is then deployed. The ability of driver air bags to deploy in a low risk manner is tested by placing the 5th percentile adult female dummy against the steering wheel and then deploying the air bag. In the NPRM, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the most practical way to maintain occupant protection in ADS-equipped vehicles with no “manually operated driving controls” (and thus, with no driver's seat) would be to treat any seat that does not have immediate access to such controls as a passenger seat under the standard. Thus, all front outboard seats in such vehicles are front outboard passenger seats and would be required to meet FMVSS No. 208's performance requirements that currently apply to the right front outboard passenger seat. For a seat located in the left front outboard position, this would be done by mirroring the test procedures and requirements from the right side. Among other things, to maintain the level of safety currently afforded to right front outboard passengers under FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA proposed requiring that all front outboard “passenger seats” meet advanced air bag requirements. Comments Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed changes to FMVSS No. 208. Consumer Reports (CR) stated NHTSA should, “maintain the maximum protection under the standard in any modification. In the case of vehicles without manual controls, this means treating each front seat as a front outboard passenger seat and requiring all the protections required by that designation.” Ford supported the proposal, but with a caveat that occupant protection requirements should not apply to an “occasional use seat” which is clearly marked. Safe Ride News (SRN) supported the proposed changes but raised the lockability requirements of S7.1.1.5a of FMVSS No. 208. These requirements require vehicles to have a seat belt assembly with a lockable lap belt at each seating position to facilitate the secure attachment of child restraint systems. The standard currently excludes the driver's seating position from lockability requirements, since, in traditional vehicles, a child restraint would not be installed at the driver's seat. SRN suggested NHTSA remove the exception from lockability for seats without manually operated driving controls or with stow-able controls in the left front seat. Agency Response In response, NHTSA emphasizes that under this final rule, a left front DSP without manually operated driving controls is a passenger seat. Similarly, a left front DSP with stow-able controls will have a mode that makes it a passenger seat. In either case, the DSP would be required to have a lockable seat belt. In response to Ford, we would make clear that the requirements would apply if the seat in question meets the definition of a DSP. Part of the DSP definition allows the labeling of certain seats as “not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion.” We believe this addresses Ford's concern, but the agency is not further expanding this provision. In the situation of a dual-mode vehicle whose controls are always in place, i.e., the controls cannot be stowed so the seat is always a driver's seat, the lockability requirements would not apply, since a child restraint is unlikely to be used at this DSP. 42 Issues relating to children seated in a DSP with driving controls are discussed in more detail later in this document. 42 Further, NHTSA discourages the use of child restraints in this driver's designated seating position. A lockable belt at that position might imply that the DSP is appropriate for a child restraint, and it is not. CalSTA requested that NHTSA ensure that any changes in nomenclature relative to the terms “passenger seat” or “driver's seat” would not degrade occupant safety and requested research to confirm there is no unintended degradation of occupant safety. In response, NHTSA emphasizes that the left front outboard passenger will be required to have the same protection as the right front outboard passenger DSP, which for adults are the same requirements that would apply to a driver's seat. The current occupant protection requirements have been in place for almost 30 years. The immense technical data and information NHTSA and the occupant safety community have acquired over this period indicate there is no difference in the FMVSS No. 208 protection afforded adult occupants by the left or right front seating position. The data and other information on advanced air bag safety protections also indicate there are no technical reasons why the protections provided by a seat in the right front outboard seating position could not be mirrored by a passenger seat on the left side. Additional research is not necessary to verify that protections afforded to one seating position would be sufficient for the other seating position, as identical designs could be applied to the opposite sides of a vehicle. This final rule adopts the proposal's provisions relating to the left front seat when that DSP meets the definition of a passenger seating position. The final rule makes minor clarifying changes to the regulatory text in response to comments, which are discussed below. This final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM that relate to advanced air bag requirements, telltale requirements (indicating air bag suppression for the left front outboard seating position), and other requirements, except as discussed below. a. Advanced Air Bags As discussed in the proposal, applying advanced air bag requirements to all front outboard seating positions maintains the current levels of safety for ADS-equipped vehicles without manually operated driving controls. Applying the requirements meets the need for safety because an occupant will receive the same crash protection whether they choose to sit in the left or right front outboard seat. In addition, an important benefit of advanced air bags over conventional air bags is the protection of out-of-position occupants, particularly children. In a traditional vehicle, the occupant in the driver's seat is typically an adult. In contrast, occupants of the left front outboard passenger seats in an ADS-equipped vehicle without manually operated driving controls could possibly be children, as there would be no driving control mechanism at any position that may deter occupancy of the seating position by a child. NHTSA tentatively concluded in the NPRM that the most straightforward way to protect children against air bag risks would be to require that any front outboard seat that could potentially be occupied by a child ( i.e., a passenger seat) must meet the current advanced air bag requirements. This final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM that relate to the protection of the left front seat occupant when that DSP meets this final rule's definition of a passenger seating position. With regard to the static suppression requirement of FMVSS No. 208 S22.2 for the 3-year-old child dummy, GM and the Alliance asked that the regulatory text “clearly specify that suppression is tested only for the seating position where the child dummy is placed.” NHTSA agrees the clarification is warranted and has added language to S22.1 to make clear that the relevant air bag that is to be suppressed is the air bag associated with the designated seating position being assessed. NHTSA has made similar clarifications to the text of FMVSS No. 208 regarding tests with the 12-month-old (S20.2) and 6-year-old (S24.2) child dummies. NADA commented that air bag switch installation should apply, “to the extent applicable and appropriate.” However, air bag on/off switch requirements comprise a topic beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, NHTSA is not considering this suggestion in this rulemaking. b. Telltales FMVSS No. 208 currently requires that vehicles display a telltale, visible to the front row occupants, which indicates whether the front outboard passenger seat air bag is suppressed. Given that this rulemaking may result in multiple front outboard passenger seats, NHTSA proposed amending this requirement to specify that a separate telltale would be required for each outboard front passenger seat based upon the belief that doing so would maintain the current level of safety provided by the standard. The NPRM proposed that the current telltale's substantive performance criteria would remain the same to provide occupants with the same level of information about the status of each pertinent air bag as provided by the current standard. Because the left front seat without manually operated controls would be a passenger seat, the NPRM proposed to require an additional telltale. Commenters had differing views on this issue. The Alliance and GM requested that NHTSA consider a single telltale unit for both front outboard seating positions, so long as that telltale is visible from each seating position. The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) stated, “it is important for occupants to verify the operational capability of safety-critical equipment in vehicles they occupy, including telltales for suppression-based advanced air bag systems.” Safe Ride News (SRN) supported requiring seat-specific telltales. Various commenters had concerns or suggestions that are addressed below. Agency Response The final rule adopts the provisions of the NPRM, with a few modifications in response to comments received. The Alliance and GM requested allowing a single telltale for both front outboard seating positions. It is NHTSA's position that, while a single telltale unit that distinguishes both indicators would be acceptable, a single light indicating the suppression status of both air bag systems, but not distinguishing their individual state of suppression would not. Separate suppression telltales clarify which associated seating position is suppressed, allowing the corresponding passenger to respond to the information with appropriate action. Separate suppression telltales verify to the caregiver of children placed in seating positions that the corresponding air bag is suppressed and allow other users to determine whether the air bag corresponding to their seating position is properly functioning. Thus, this final rule requires the telltale to be clearly recognizable to a driver and any front outboard passenger with which seat each telltale is associated. IIHS argued that the proposal's use of “any” in reference to seating position requirements from which telltales required by FMVSS Nos. 226 (S4.2.2) and 208 (S19.2.2(d)) must be visible, is ambiguous, and suggested that the final rule use the term “all.” The IIHS comment seems to interpret the proposal as seeking to require that the suppression telltale be visible from any DSP in the vehicle. This is incorrect. The proposal restricted visibility to the front outboard seats for the FMVSS No. 208 telltale. Accordingly, the final rule will retain the word “any” in FMVSS No. 208 S19.2.2(d). Comments specific to the FMVSS No. 226 telltale are addressed later in this document. Safe Ride News commented that the location should be “on the dash in easy-to-see, logical juxtaposition to the seat for which it applies.” On the other hand, the Automotive Safety Council (ASC) believed that the location of the telltale sho [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-05426. Public record. Not legal advice.